The M Files

I’ve written several times about the energy performance gap that we frequently experience on projects seeking LEED certification. That is, the gap between the LEED score card targeted performance and what’s experienced in actual operation. LEED building energy performance can be hit or miss. Yet experience with our portfolio of Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreements has been exceptional, with aggressive energy targets repeatedly scoring direct hits.

An example of the LEED energy performance gap.

So what is it between the two delivery processes that creates such distinction in performance expectations? Let’s start with the LEED goal-setting process. We’ve narrowed it down to three simple points.

1. They aren’t communicated in plain English. The goals are obscure at best. We’re currently working on a LEED project where the energy goal is to achieve 25% below an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 baseline condition. Confused? I thought so. Even the most experienced HVAC engineer needs to do some background checking to figure out what this goal might mean. That kind of technical language intimidates a lot of players on the project team. What are the chances of achieving aggressive goals when few understand what they really are? Since the targets aren’t simply stated, they rarely guide consensus-based design decisions.

2. Nobody is ultimately accountable for achieving the goal. Usually when an energy question comes up during a LEED project’s design activities, all eyes turn to the project’s mechanical engineer. But that engineer usually has little authority over team decision making. Further, the energy engineer is rarely contracted to ensure implementation of various energy model assumptions, including an effective owner-training program.

What happens if a facility owner discovers that his LEED energy goals are missed? Here’s one head-spinning sequence we observed not long ago: The owner called the construction manager, who then contacted the architect, who then contacted the mechanical engineer. After some initial investigation the engineer advised the architect who advised the construction manager that something was wrong with the building automation system (BAS). So the construction manager called in the mechanical contractor who then called on his BAS subcontractor. The BAS sub pointed out that they met their contractual obligation, so the construction manager advised the owner to call in their third party commissioning agent, who held a contract directly with the owner. The commissioning agent wasn’t on the hook for hitting energy goals, either. So, the owner had to pick up the pieces.

Nobody was accountable. The goal was purely a failed theory. The buck never stopped, and I think it’s still running wild despite the LEED plaque on the lobby wall.

3. There’s rarely a sensible plan to measure and verify results. There’s only so much energy efficiency that can be designed into a building. Even the most efficient of designs can fall flat on its face through inadequate operational practices. Yet, despite the ability to gain LEED points through instituting a measurement and verification (M&V) plan, most project teams are disbanded shortly after a building’s substantial completion. When M&V activities are contracted, they usually engage too late in the design process, as if they’re bolted on to a confused and suspicious project team.

A good M&V plan is a road map to energy success. The best plans are conceived during the design development phase, so that they can influence design decisions. Post-occupancy M&V activities create an ongoing energy feedback loop to building operators and designers, allowing them to diagnose problems and make timely adjustments.

So the natural follow-up question to all of this is, How should LEED (or any other) energy goals be set? The short answer is that we should state the goals in plain English, establish accountability measures, and create specific M&V plans early in the design process. I’ll share some of the secrets to our success in our next post.